Chandrawimala Therunnanse V. Siyadoris Et Al

1946 Present: Howard U.S. and de Silva S.

CHANDRAWIMALA THERUNNANSE, Appellant, and SIYADORIS et at., Respondents.

286-D. C. Galle, 890.

Buddhist Temporalities-Purchase of land by incumbent-Uncertainty as to whether consideration was from temple or private funds-Subsequent possession by temple for 67 years-Inference that property was sanghika-Bhikku who is not rightful incumbent but has acted as Viharadhipathi-His right to maintain action regarding sanghika property.

A certain land was purchased by the incumbent of a Buddhist temple, but the deed of sale dated March 29, 1817, did not show whether the consideration was provided by the priest out of his pudgalika property or from the funds of the temple. There was, however, documentary evidence showing clearly that, subsequent to the death of the incumbent, the temple was in possession of the land as sanghika property for a period of 67 years.

Held, that the land was the sanghika property of the temple and not the private property of any of the priests resident therein to whom the pudgalika property of the incumbent had been devised.

Held, further, that a Bhikku, who is not the rightful incumbent, can maintain an action in respect of sanghika property of a temple if lie lies acquired sufficient interest ns Viharadhipathi.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Galle.

E. A. P. Wijeratne (with him U. A. Jayasundara), for the plaintiff, appellant.-The evidence both documentary and oral proves conclusively that the land in question was sanghika property. The evidence of possession negatives the suggestion that this was the pudgalika property of any priest. The last will 203 and the Inventories P10, P11 and the Grain Tax Commutation Register P6 are significant.
   
The planting agreement P7 entered into by the Trustee of the temple with one Uberis in respect of this land also indicates that this property was recognized as sanghika.
   
The learned Judge, was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain this action as controlling Viharadhipathi. See Sumana Therunnanse v. Somaratne Therunnanse  [(1935) 5 C.L.W. 37.]  .

H. W?. Jayewardene, for the first defendant, respondent.

L. A. Rajapakse, K.C. (with him S. .R. Wijayatilake), for the second defendant, respondent.-The learned Judge was right in holding that the property in question was not sanghika. The Inventory P11 is a copy of Inventory Pl1. The lease 2010 of 1922 for 10 years by Kondanna There of this property was on the basis that it was pudgalika property. His including this land in the Inventory as sanghika property cannot be of much significance. At the time of the lease Kondanna There was not functioning as Viharadhipathi and he could have leased the property only in his personal capacity. Two other lands, Radagewatta and Pothukumbura, which appear in the Inventory P11 as sanghika property have been held to be pudgalika by the District Court, Galle-2018 and 2019. With regard to the planting agreement P7 the Register 2D16 shows that in 1922 Uberis sued not the Trustee but Kondanna for compensation and 2D17 shows that the compensation was

paid by Kondanna although he had ceased to be Adikari in 1918. See P3 and P4. The deed 2D2 of 1852 refers to property acquired by Indrajothi out of his private cash and also to property granted to the Vihara as charity. The land in dispute had not been given to the Vihara. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that this property was recognised as pudgalika property. See also the last will 3D3 and last will 2D5. Kondanna?s will was admitted to probate and this land was sold to recover the testamentary expenses 2D13 of 1934.
   
The plaintiff has no status to maintain this action as he is not the Controlling Viharadhipathi. Indrajothi was the original incumbent and the plaintiff is not in the line of succession of Indrajothi. Piyadassi being in the direct lin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document